Catjackus.com, Mondollamas.com, Home-threshold.com

The timeline behind catjackus.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Target Brands, Inc. v. DSegarra Claude / Fitzgerald Michael / BCovington Harvey Claim Number: FA2502002140133 PARTIES Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is DSegarra Claude / Fitzgerald Michael / BCovington Harvey ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <catjackus.com>, <mondollamas.com> and <home-threshold.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2025. Forum received payment on February 13, 2025. On February 13, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <catjackus.com>, <mondollamas.com> and <home-threshold.com> domain names are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 18, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@catjackus.com, postmaster@mondollamas.com, and postmaster@home-threshold.com. Also on February 26, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder". Paragraph 1(d) of Forum's Supplemental Rules defines "The Holder of a Domain Name Registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement" and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i). Complainant has shown that the <catjackus.com>, <mondollamas.com> and <home-threshold.com> domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Hence this decision refers to DSegarra Claude / Fitzgerald Michael / BCovington Harvey as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Target Brands, Inc., owns the trademarks CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD (the "Marks") and makes extensive use of them in connection with in-store and online offering of CAT & JACK (kids' and baby apparel and accessories), MONDO LLAMA (arts and crafts) and THRESHOLD (home décor, bedding, furniture) products. Each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names, which were registered and are being used in bad faith. As to legitimacy, upon information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or any of the terms CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD, nor does Respondent operate a legitimate business or other organization under any of the Marks and does not own any trademark or service mark rights in any relevant names. Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent is engaged in an impersonation and phishing scheme utilizing the disputed domain names. Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant's CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD trademarks. The disputed domain names are (or were, prior to getting taken down/suspended) used for fake CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD webshops, presumably to trick users into placing orders and entering their personal information as part of a phishing attempt or perhaps for the sale of counterfeit merchandise. Respondent cannot claim that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain, so its actions do not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses domain names that are confusingly similar Complainant's respective Marks and uses them as part of scheme to confuse Complainant's customers into believing that the resulting websites are owned by, or affiliated with Complainant, when this is not the case. Finally, Respondent's use has tarnished and diluted Complainant's CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD Marks and diminished the public's capacity to associate the Marks with the quality products and services offered by Complainant under the Marks. As to bad faith, Respondent intentionally targeted Complainant's Marks without consent from Complainant. Respondent was on actual notice of Complainant's rights in the Marks as a result of Complainant's extensive use of the Marks which long predates the date on which Respondent acquired the disputed domain names, each of which consists of an identical copy of either the CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA or THRESHOLD Mark combined with one additional element. Finally, each of Respondent's websites incorporates, or did prior to getting taken down or suspended due to its abusive use, one of Complainant's Marks and their respective products. As such, the Respondent can only have created the disputed domain names with knowledge of, and in violation of, Complainant's trademark rights. Respondent's creation of a web of phishing websites and domain names that each impersonate one of Complainant's Marks alone constitutes bad faith as it disrupts Complainant's business and seeks to capitalize on confusion with the CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD Marks respectively. Respondent's entire scheme aimed at impersonating Complainant's brands is indicative of its intent to confuse users for its own commercial gain and to disrupt Complainant's business by drawing users to the disputed domain names. The fact that visitors to Respondent's sites could see categories of consumer products generally sold by Complainant under the Marks and enter their personal information shows that Respondent is seeking to harvest all of this information, likely with the goal of extracting funds from users and engaging in phishing, identity theft and other kinds of fraud. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD marks through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., CAT & JACK, Reg. No. 5,143,395 registered on February 14, 2017; MONDO LLAMA, Reg. No. 6,674,139 registered on March 15, 2022; and THRESHOLD, Reg. No. 4,700,052, registered on March 10, 2015). It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <catjackus.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's CAT & JACK mark, only differing by the omission of the spaces and the ampersand and the addition of the abbreviation "us"; Respondent's <mondollamas.com> domain name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's MONDO LLAMA mark, only differing by the omission of the space and the addition of the letter "s"; and Respondent's <home-threshold.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's THRESHOLD mark, only differing by the addition of the word "home" and a hyphen. None of these differences are sufficient to distinguish any of the domain names from Complainant's corresponding mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or names corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <catjackus.com>, <mondollamas.com>, and <home-threshold.com> domain names were registered respectively on March 15 and 16 and November 23, 2024, several years after Complainant registered its CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD marks. Prior to being taken down, each of the disputed domain names resolved to a website offering for sale the kind of consumer products offered by Complainant under its CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD marks and displaying Complainant's corresponding mark. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <catjackus.com>, <mondollamas.com>, and <home-threshold.com> domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iv) by using the domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's CAT & JACK, MONDO LLAMA and THRESHOLD marks when Respondent registered the <catjackus.com>, <mondollamas.com>, and <home-threshold.com> domain names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source of Respondent's websites and of the goods promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <catjackus.com>, <mondollamas.com>, and <home-threshold.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 19, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.